Delay Delay Delay

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

BTW, do you really think they did not see the difference between "my character chooses not to use his most potent attack in order to not kill the guy" and "My Gm asked me as a player not to have my character do this effective tactic too often so I only have him decide its Ok to use it in special circumstances" when they used one to frex the other? [/b]

 

I can't think of any other explanation.

[Quasar]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Sorry, but your claim is spurious. Regardless of whether your DEX is one or 100, you can abort at any time in the next phase.

 

Sorry, my mistake. I don't know what I was thinking. My point should have been that the cost of high DEX covers the use of the maneuver you describe. That's what I get for trying to do about five things at one time.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I think a good game provides an in-game reason for heroes to follow the genre, such as penalties for all out attacks which discourage their constant use. For example, why don't supers carry weapons and wear bullet proof vests? The rules could say "Equipment is purchased with money. But superheroes shouldn't wear bulletproof vests and carry flamethrowers because that's not the way the comics do it." This would, of course, be a load of crap. Instead, the bok says "Superheroes must pay character points if they want to carry equipment around. This is why few supers in the comics carry large amounts of gear, even though it would seem sensible for them to do so." Thus, there is an in-game reason why Tiger-Man does not carry a flamethrower, despite the advantages it would give him in combat.

 

I've said just about all I am going to on this topic. Someone a few posts back said, and I agree with him, that no game can faithfully simulate everything with 100% accuracy. IMO it is up to the players and GM to follow genre, not the rules to force them to. The Shade doesn't carry a RPG Launcher because it wouln't be genre or in his concept, not because the rules would make him pay points for one.

 

Quasar

Leader of Millennium Force

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Can you provide a page or FAQ reference for this? It's something I'd never considered, frankly.

 

Good reason not to consider it. The rule no longer exists and is part of a hang over from many years of gaming. It still should be a rule (IMHO), but I went to Steve for a clarification. Turn out that I am wrong on this one as far as Steve goes.

 

Here is the thread. . .

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=226202#post226202

 

Even the mighty Keneton is wrong at least 2 times a year! LOL

[tesuji]

An aside,

 

If i weren't worried about scope and wanted a simpler rules change, instead of applying a "one full segment" delay across the board, i might just drop the "cannot abort in same segment" rule altogether.

 

This makes it very simple.

 

It also make it no more dangerous, no more vulnerable, to act on your dex than delaying until the end of segment.

 

Matter of fact, it removes the entire "rulesic" reason for delaying altogether... it no longer matters whether you fire your rapid fire shot on dex 26 or on dex 1.

 

So the only reasons to DELAY are those completely IN CHARACTER... do the circumstances and the situation make it good for you to delay or to shoot now, without some game clock ticking overhead.

 

of course, this option has the reverse approach to hugh's... it doesn't enforce the penalties at all and allows anyone to rapid fire then abort" at anytime... with the only trade off being they lose their next action due to the abort to get rid of the penalties from rapid fire. Would this be enough of a trade off? Hard to say.

 

But it does get rid of the problem of having no real explanation as to why someone on dex A does something and has a longer wait than someone on dex B does.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

If i weren't worried about scope and wanted a simpler rules change, instead of applying a "one full segment" delay across the board, i might just drop the "cannot abort in same segment" rule altogether.

 

This approach would encourage a different combat style, as you note - Rapid Fire, then abort. It becomes a different style, not necessarily better or worse.

 

I recall a survey long ago on Champions games where the company was surprised with results like campaigns with average defenses of 35 and average attacks of 8-10d6, and average defenses of 15 and average attacks of 15d6. Obviously, combat styles would be very different.

 

The abovew approach would lead to fast, brutal combat allowing everyone to avoid the penalties. The "wait one segment" fix would keep the structure we're used to, with elimination of the manipulative "dealy/abort" tactic to minimize penalties. Tough to say which would be better - depends on the desired playstyle. It's also tough since neither of us sees the tactic, so we're not likely to test either fix.

[tesuji]

Actually, i think the scenario designs would have a lot to do with it. if the scenarios were just slugfests, then i can see the rapid fire then abort thing becoming more popular, or as popular as the delay-rapid-abort thing is now.

 

But... and here's the rub, if the combats made more than slugfesting important, then it might not be.

 

The drawback is not the vulnerability "cannot abort window" but the loss of action. Think of a pair of speed 6 guys... one using this tactic and one using more normal half-move-act type maneuvers.

 

The rapid-fire-abort guy is effectively speed 3 and he cannot move on any turn he tries this trick. basically he seems to be a rather slow moving artillery piece.

 

The normal guy is speed 6 and moving whenever he feels like it. he is very reactive by comparison.

 

Mr artillery on segment 2 does his RF-abort trick and now is stuck where he is until segment 6.

 

It seems to me the viability or encouragement stems more from how important the Gms scenarios make that reactive and movement capability an element in his scenarios.

 

Agreed, its different, not necessarily better or worse, slightly intriguing.